Annoying Semantics
Obama had a group of people from both sides of the abortion debate looking for common ground. A lady from the Pro-Life said said (echoing Obama) that a reasonable mutual goal was to reduce the "number of abortions" at which point a lady from the Pro-Life side said, "No...we need to reduce the need for abortions."
Her point is that if they concede that reducing the number is a good thing it puts abortion somewhere on a graded scale of morality. If this thing is wrong than why would it need to be reduced.
BS.
Her point is that if they concede that reducing the number is a good thing it puts abortion somewhere on a graded scale of morality. If this thing is wrong than why would it need to be reduced.
BS.
1 Comments:
Sometimes I wonder if the abortion debate would still be a debate if we all were forced to use the same vocabulary. Jeff and I have talked a lot about this...I think I eventually want to work for, or start, a non-profit that focuses on sane, level-headed conversations with people on both sides of a topic. So instead of "pro-life" and "pro-choice" (which I think we can all agree are NOT opposites), we'd come up with different names that aren't loaded phrases. And we'd try to avoid talking points. And we wouldn't allow yelling. I think I need to start my own blog so I don't leave any more long comments on yours :)
Post a Comment
<< Home